Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To think 'in your face Osborne?'

493 replies

Littlefluffyclouds81 · 26/10/2015 20:50

I'm not. I know I'm not. I'm personally going to have a glass of wine and celebrate there being a significant amount of egg on the Tories' faces.

OP posts:
HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 21:34

So be careful what you wish for Joffrey You could be in Irians position in a few years time.

JoffreyBaratheon · 27/10/2015 21:36

I think anyone talking about me the same way as I have about them, wouldn't faze me in the least. If the tories think the working poor, disabled and now elderly are fair targets - then why not others? As I said upthread I think it is because they want to have the "doleites with massive free council houses, flat screen TVs and holidays abroad" headlines - to make everyone in the middle, who is not so poor, vote for them. So to tackle the obvious excess income of people like my neighbours, would get rid of the readymade hate figures the tabloid tory press need to whip up a climate where they can then take benefits from hardworking people, the disabled etc, with impunity.

That is the point of my argument. I do think that is I have an income comparable to an unemployed person's and the government want to save money - then if I have to buy my kids' lunches - so can the unemployed family. I am not saying reduce their benefits drastically. Just put them on a parr with us working poor, then. For some reason, that hasn't happened.

HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 21:37

Im childfree by choice Joffrey but i dont begrudge anyone their child tax credits. I was disgusted by these plans.

TalkinPease · 27/10/2015 21:38

THe important thing to bear in mind is that Gideon Osborne was born a millionaire into a family with such efficient tax planning that the business pays no corporation tax.

He truly does not give a shit about the poor.
He thinks they are lazy
he does not recognise that not everybody is born lucky

so he gives tax breaks to millionaires and punishes hard working families

and now he's threatening the House of Lords
when HE was in the wrong by using the wrong type ofd legislation
to carry out his foul plan

HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 21:43

Joffrey they are also the working poor Many of them are on WORKFARE.

Childless unemployed couples and singles get very very little and can end up on workfare for six months.

All because they dont have living proof that they have had sex without contraception.

And you say they havent touched the unemployed ARE YOU SHITTING ME

HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 21:45

How wonderful to know that if i was ever unfortunate enough to sign on again the support i show would not be reciprocated by some parents.

GloriaSmellens · 27/10/2015 21:45

I don't understand the Tory's logic:

'We musnt reduce the income of the wealthy through higher taxes, it will disincentivise them to work harder'

Alongside

'We must reduce the income of the poor through cutting tax credits, it will give them an incentive to work harder'

Confused
HarveySchlumpfenburger · 27/10/2015 21:49

They don't really have anyone else to blame for that, Talk.

If they'd actually gone about it the right way, rather than try to avoid any issues with a backbench rebellion, then GO wouldn't have had to do his 'but, but, but they can't do that, it's unconstitutional' interview last night.

They don't seem to have been prepared for this at all. The arrogance is astounding.

JoffreyBaratheon · 27/10/2015 21:57

I still don't get how the Lords doing what the Lords are there to do (restrain the excesses of nuts legislation) was 'unconstitutional'; and yet if they'd rubber-stamped this, they would be the 'good old Lords'. And somehow not unconstitutional.

It's a no brainer that the upper house should be elected. But isn't this precisely why they're there - to put a halt to crap like this?

Anyone see this obscenity? A multi-millionaire rushing back to the UK to try and support this attack on the poorest people in society?

www.theguardian.com/culture/shortcuts/2015/oct/27/andrew-lloyd-webber-vote-in-favour-tax-credit-cuts

HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 21:59

From what ive seen on Twitter he isnt the only one.

Darvany · 27/10/2015 22:20

Fucking hell, what a colossal prick Andrew Lloyd Webber is Shock

We paid for his flight I presume?

HarveySchlumpfenburger · 27/10/2015 22:24

I don't think anyone understands exactly how it was unconstitutional, Joffrey.

You could argue that immediately seeking to reform the Lords the day after having your nuts legislation delayed by them probably should be considered unconstitutional.

Bubblesinthesummer · 27/10/2015 22:25

And they have already brought more punitive measures in for the unemployed and the disabled over the past five years. It didnt garner this amount of threads though funnily enough

Very true

Darvany · 27/10/2015 22:39

Ideological and punitive cuts for the unemployed and disabled rated very few threads on here compared to the squawking when Child Benefit was cut from higher earners. It was all over AIBU, Chat, Politics and The News, and the threads weren't from lone parents who deserved to have their concerns about unfairness listened to either.

HelenaDove · 27/10/2015 22:44

YY Darvany Well said!!!

Dawndonnaagain · 28/10/2015 00:16

Joffrey, the neighbours, in all likelihood have a lifestyle that can't be maintained long term. They probably have a huge amount of debt so free school meals is actually a necessity for them. Perhaps they're trying to ensure their children don't go without in a different way to you.

longtimelurker101 · 28/10/2015 14:26

The problem with the tales of benefits queens with flat screen TVs and new cars every year is people don't know the ins and outs of personal finances, family help or just why certain benefits are paid.

The DATA from the DWP themselves shows that benefit fraud is very low and actually costs less than the benefits that people are entitled to but go unclaimed.

The same with those who say " my friends xyz, blah, blah lifestyle choice." the data proves that people who stay on benefits as a lifestyle choice are few and far between.

Then we move to tax credits, most on tax credits will eventually come off them, and work full time. Now, in order to facilitate that we give tax credits to make work incentivised ( you know the same reason we lower the highest rate of tax and corporation tax) so that it gives you a benefit of being in work. Take that away and people may see that staying at home on claiming benefits is actually better cause that way they see their kids, they might be poor, but they're not working all day to pay childcare to see very little as an end results.

Also during this time we lose skills as people who are out of work for forget what they have been trained or just get out of practice.

I don't get why the Tories can be so duplicitous, and people on here can't see it. Whats good for the goose is good for the gander, if we called tax credits "work incentives" would that take away some of the stigma?

hampsterdam · 28/10/2015 15:10

Joffrey wouldn't it make more sense rather than make sure unemployed people are worse off that working poor to make sure working poor are better off than being unemployed. Divide and conquer has worked, you would rather see your naighbours have less than realise you should be entitles to more, a living wage, affordable childcare and reasonable rents. It's the race to the bottom, meanwhile those at the top and their friends make off with millions in subsidies bonuses and unpaid taxes.
Make businesses pay. There's plenty of money, it's just that a certain few are hording a majority of it.

angelos02 · 28/10/2015 15:39

Just make minimum wage £10 per hour. No paying tax before 20k per year. Equals more money spent (obviously as low earners spend more proportionately) = a healthy economy.

TalkinPease · 28/10/2015 15:42

angelos
Just make minimum wage £10 per hour. No paying tax before 20k per year. Equals more money spent (obviously as low earners spend more proportionately) = a healthy economy
Nope.
It equals mass unemployment.

Care Home fees will have to rise
Nursery fees will have to rise
School budgets will have to rise
Supermarkets will lay off staff and bring in more automation

There is a balancing point where it becomes cheaper to get stuff done by machines or offshore

remember that only the top 20% are net contributors to the tax system
and soaking them never ends well

DraculasDixieNormas · 28/10/2015 16:41

well methe I hope you will have no mortgage or cc costs if your dh ever leaves you. If you do I can guarantee he won't give you enough for you and your dc to survive without tc

longtimelurker101 · 28/10/2015 16:46

"remember that only the top 20% are net contributors to the tax system"

This is only in tangible benefits only, not the benefits of living in this society without which they would not be able to be in the 20% of the wealthiest.

One of the reasons why tax credits were brought in and have increased in use is that the policies operated by governments and businesses have unfairly redistrubuted the wealth towards the top.

Its about time that was addressed.

HelenaDove · 28/10/2015 17:02

And so it begins. IDS says Job Centre advisors could be placed in food banks.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/28/food-banks-job-benefits-advisers-iain-duncan-smith

TalkinPease · 28/10/2015 17:06

longtimelurker
Its about time that was addressed.
Absolutely.
The UK (and the rest of the developed world) need to bring taxes on Capital back into line with taxes on income.

A decent land / property tax would be an excellent start - the UK is the only OECD country that does not have one.

And much more enforced transparency over offshore ownership - one stroke of Gideon's pen would stop the stacked LLP game which is unique to the UK

And there would not be a massive flight of the wealthy as the UK is one of the safest economies in the world at the moment.